RECORD OF DECISION ATTACHMENT D:

COMMENTS ON THE TIER II FINAL EIS
ATTACHMENT D-1:

AGENCY AND ORGANIZATION COMMENTS 

ON THE TIER II FINAL EIS


DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NORFOLK DISTRICT

FORT NORFOLK

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1011

July 15, 2019

Special Projects Regulatory Section 

NAO-2014-01959

Washington, DC to Richmond, Virginia Southeast High Speed Rail Project

U. S. Department of Transportation

ATTN: Mr. John Winkle

USDOT Federal Railroad Administrator

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

Virginia Department of Rail and 

Public Transportation

ATTN: Ms. Emily Stock

600 East Main Street, Suite 2102

Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Mr. Winkle and Ms. Stock: 

 This letter provides comments on the Tier II Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) prepared for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia Southeast High Speed 

Rail Project (DC2RVA). The FEIS was prepared by the U. S. Department of 

Transportation Federal Rail Administration (FRA) and the Virginia Department of Rail 

and Public Transportation. 

 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has reviewed the FEIS, including the 

responses provided to our comments on the Draft EIS provided in the letter dated 

November 6, 2017. We appreciate the detail in your responses to our comments and

concerns. We have the following minor comments and/or recommendations: 

 

1. Based on the lapse of time before funding becomes available and other factors, 

there is the potential that a new delineation might be required and/or verification

that there have been no changes to previously delineated aquatic resources 

when submitting a jurisdictional determination request. As a reminder, 

jurisdictional determinations once confirmed by USACE are valid for five years. 

As noted in the FEIS, DRPT will coordinate for wetland functions and values and 

Unified Stream Methodology (USM) results for verification prior to the permitting 

process Appendix B1 (B-23). To ensure sufficient field review for a project of 

this nature, we highly recommend allowing a very generous timeframe for this 

coordination and procuring the jurisdictional determination well in advance. 
-2- 

2. We understand the constraints until funding becomes available; however, as you 

advance to the next level of design, to the extent possible, we recommend 

continued collaboration with USACE. As acknowledged in Chapter 7, Section 

7.8, we recommend early planning with the appropriate branches of USACE for 

any required Section 408 permissions. We also recommend early coordination in 

all permit application submittals for a project of this magnitude. When submitting 

phased permit applications, please note that USACE for each submittal must 

have logical termini (independent utility), for instance, from station to station.

3. In FRA’s response to USACE comments on the DEIS, Appendix B1, (B-21), and 

as noted in EPA’s comment (11), (B-10), FRA notes that after funding becomes 

available, “the functions, values, and condition of wetlands and the availability of 

mitigation sites will be evaluated.” While USACE acknowledges that there are 

funding constraints we do recommend to research this early as there are limited 

to no credits available in some of the watersheds. 

The FEIS correctly notes that compensation for impacts to jurisdictional waters 

and wetlands will be required in accordance with the Mitigation Rule (33 CFR 

Parts 325 and 332), which indicates a preference for using credits from 

mitigation banks; use of Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, an in-lieu fee 

program, and permittee-responsible mitigation are other potential options. We 

recommend that the project proponent remain informed about credit availability if 

the project goes forward to permitting, in order to be prepared to propose 

adequate and appropriate compensation.

4. We look forward to continuing to work with you throughout the permit review 

stages and identification of additional avoidance and minimization measures and 

design considerations. We appreciate the stated commitments noted in Chapter 

5, Section 5.1.6.1 and throughout the FEIS. While avoidance and minimization 

of wetlands and streams has been an important consideration in your 

identification of the Preferred Alternative, impacts to aquatic resources are 

substantial. Wetland impacts are estimated at approximately 24 acres, and 

stream impacts are estimated at approximately 30 thousand linear feet. As the

project development continues, further measures to avoid and minimize impacts 

to streams and wetlands should be evaluated, incorporated wherever 

practicable, and documented for the record. 
-3- 

To re-affirm what was previously noted in our earlier comments, in accordance with 

the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, USACE can authorize only the least environmentally 

damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). In addition to wetland and waters impacts, 

we must consider factors such as economics (including displacements of homes and 

businesses), floodplain hazards and values, water supply and conservation, water 

quality, safety, cost, economics, threatened and endangered species, historic and 

cultural resources, and environmental justice. As part of our public interest review, we 

will consider operability and constructability, cost, and impacts to the social/economic 

factors as well as the natural environment in our identification of the LEDPA further in 

our permit review process. It is also important to note that we will consider all 

comments from the public, including our Federal Advisories, in making a final 

determination of the LEDPA as part of our permit decision.

 A copy of this letter will be sent to: National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, 

MA, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gloucester, VA, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, Philadelphia, PA, NOAA Fisheries Service, Gloucester Point, VA and 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, VA. 

 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Tier II FEIS. Should you have any 

questions about our comments, please contact me at 757-201-7832 or email at 

lee.a.fuerst@usace.army.mil.

Sincerely,

Lee Fuerst

Environmental Scientist

Special Projects, Regulatory Section

www.ashlandva.gov

101 THOMPSON STREET

P.O. BOX 1600

ASHLAND, VIRGINIA 23005-4600

TELEPHONE (804) 798-9219

FAX (804) 798-4892

June 28, 2019

Emily Stock

Manager of Rail Planning

DRPT

600 East Main Street, Suite 2102

Richmond, VA 230219

RE: Official Town of Ashland Comments on the DC2RVA FEIS

Ms. Stock,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FEIS. Most, if not all, of our 

technical comments were submitted as part of the DEIS process, and we appreciate

DRPT’s detailed efforts to provide responses to those comments. In an effort not 

to duplicate the comments sent as part of the DEIS I will summarize our thoughts 

on the FEIS as follows:

• The Town believes several decisions made as part of the Tier One study of 

the corridor were short sighted. In particular, any decision to continue 

reliance on diesel trains on shared use tracks may well meet the limited 

purpose and need of the study, but does not meet the current and long term 

transportation needs of the Commonwealth of Virginia and it’s citizens and 

businesses. 

• As DRPT moves forward with more detailed engineering of the grade 

separated crossings at Vaughan Road and Ashcake Road; the Town would 

appreciate participating as a partner in the planning, design, and 

engineering process to assist in limiting negative impact on the community 

while also coordinating the improvements with the long term land use plans 

in the surrounding areas. In particular, the Town has plans for much of the 

area north of Vaughan Road on the west side of the railroad tracks. 

• Section 7.3 states, “The SDP discusses the location of the stations to be 

served under the Preferred Alternative, how these stations will 

accommodate the proposed service (for example, with amenities such as 

checked baggage handling or parking), how passengers will access those 

stations, and how these stations will be integrated with connections to other 

modes of transportation.” The Town would expect to be included in the

planning and development of the SDP for the Ashland Station. 

STEVEN P. 

TRIVETT

MAYOR

JOHN H. 

HODGES

VICE-MAYOR

GEORGE F.

SPAGNA, JR.

COUNCIL MEMBER

KATHLEEN K. 

ABBOTT

COUNCIL MEMBER

DANIEL W. 

MCGRAW

COUNCIL MEMBER

JOSHUA S. 

FARRAR

TOWN MANAGER

ANDREA E. 

ERARD

TOWN ATTORNEY

MATTHEW G. 

REYNAL

CLERK OF COUNCIL
• The Town appreciates the inclusion of language which states “If DRPT determines that 

additional rail capacity is needed in Alternative Area 5 to meet the performance standards 

required for additional passenger trains, DRPT shall conduct a new study based on updated 

information.” We will rely upon this language to protect our interests once construction 

begins on improvements in Alternative Area 5, as well as at such time as DRPT and the 

FRA determine the 3-2-3 alignment is too much of a bottleneck based on future growth. 

• Finally, the Town continues to be concerned that adoption, planning and implementation 

of the Preferred Alternative 3-2-3 alignment in Alternative Area 5 will inevitably lead to 

the addition of a third track through Town subsequent to the current DC2RVA process. If 

DRPT and the FRA are going to continue to rely on existing rail technology rather than 

looking to alternative technologies to meet future needs we must re-iterate that the only 

alternative considered throughout the entire process that would meet future capacity needs, 

and would have received unanimous support of the Citizen Advisory Committee, is the 

Deep Bore Tunnel option. 

Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our thoughts and concerns. Attached to this 

letter is a resolution adopted by the Ashland Town Council on June 18, 2019 which expresses 

the concerns and positions of the elected representatives of the community. 

Respectfully,

Joshua S. Farrar

Town Manager

Town of Ashland, VA




July 1, 2019 

Ms. Emily Stock 

Manager of Rail Planning BY EMAIL 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation 

info@DC2RVArail.com 

Re: Comments on Tier II Final EIS for Washington, DC to Richmond High-Speed Rail 

Dear Ms. Stock: 

 The Southern Environmental Law Center would like to provide the following comments 

on the Tier II Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Washington, DC to Richmond 

High-Speed Rail (DC2RVA) project. SELC is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that works 

throughout Virginia to promote transportation and land use decisions that strengthen our 

communities, protect our natural resources, and improve our quality of life. This includes a 

focus on developing a cleaner transportation system and providing Virginians with a broader 

range of transportation choices. 

 We strongly support enhancing passenger and freight rail in the Commonwealth, and we 

have long supported efforts to provide fast, frequent, and reliable passenger rail service in the 

critical Washington, DC to Richmond corridor. The DC2RVA corridor is central to the 

movement of people and goods throughout Virginia, and is both a crucial segment of the 

Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor and a key connector to the Northeast Corridor. As the Final 

EIS makes clear, the DC2RVA project would provide many important benefits, including 

increasing travel options and reducing congestion in this vital transportation corridor, reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions, and encouraging more compact development patterns. It would also 

provide a backbone for a larger network of efficient transportation options such as local transit 

and light rail. Improving the DC2RVA corridor must be a top priority for the Commonwealth to 

meet the evolving transportation needs of our residents and businesses, as well as to advance 

Virginia’s goals of reducing transportation pollution. 

 In the Final EIS, we support many of the decisions that have been made in selecting the 

Preferred Alternative, including the focus on keeping improvements primarily within existing 

right-of-way, the selection of the two-station solution in Richmond focusing on upgrading the 

existing Main Street and Staples Mill Stations, and the decisions to not pursue destructive new 

bypasses around Fredericksburg and Ashland that would have had significant adverse effects on 

habitat, wetlands, and agricultural lands. 

We also appreciate the inclusion in this Final EIS of additional information about the 

estimated costs of the DC2RVA project (both overall and by section), potential federal and state 

funding sources, and the potential prioritization of these improvements. As the Final EIS 

acknowledges, completing this $5.6 billion project will require significant time and coordination, 

and it is imperative to provide decision-makers and the public with a fair picture of the remaining 

steps that will be needed to get us there. 
2

 The benefits of the DC2RVA project would be substantial. In addition to greatly 

expanding rail service by accommodating 18 additional intercity passenger trains (9 round trips) 

each day, the Final EIS shows that the Preferred Alternative is expected to significantly improve 

on-time performance for passenger trains in the corridor—easily exceeding the 90% on-time 

performance target.1

 It is also expected to achieve these enhancements to passenger rail with 

minimal effects on the corridor’s freight services.2 Of course, there are a number of variables 

impacting on-time performance, and even if the DC2RVA project is fully implemented the 

Commonwealth will need to be vigilant and aggressive in ensuring that on-time performance 

targets are met. 

The Final EIS further estimates that the Preferred Alternative will remove up to 2,700 

vehicles per day (and 322,000 vehicle miles per day) from the parallel I-95 and U.S. Route 1 

corridors, equating to a net reduction of approximately 3 million gallons of fuel per year being 

consumed in the corridor.3

 The DC2RVA project will also have significant economic and land 

use benefits, including encouraging transit-oriented development in the vicinity of the corridor’s 

rail stations. To further augment these benefits, as the DC2RVA project moves forward we 

strongly encourage continuing consideration of the electrification of rail lines in this corridor, as 

well as additional opportunities to improve public transit connections to key rail stations. 

That being said, the Preferred Alternative would still result in adverse effects in a number 

of areas along the corridor, and as this project advances to the permitting and final design stages 

we also urge continuing consideration of additional refinements and mitigation measures that can 

further avoid or minimize these impacts. Some particular areas in which this further review is 

needed include anticipated noise impacts on environmental justice communities in the corridor 

(which the Final EIS found to be disproportionately high in a number of areas), as well as the 

Preferred Alternative’s remaining impacts on wetlands, streams, and habitat for endangered and 

threatened species. 

 Given the Preferred Alternative’s alignment through many existing and long-standing 

communities, it also has the potential to adversely affect historic and cultural resources in several 

locations. We appreciate the significant attention paid to these effects in the Final EIS, including 

recent efforts to address concerns raised by SELC and a number of other groups during this EIS 

process about the need to further study potential impacts in the vicinity of Richmond’s Main 

Street Station on the Lumpkin’s Jail/Devil’s Half Acre site and nearby burial grounds in Shockoe 

Bottom associated with enslavement history. Along these lines, we support the commitments 

identified in the Final EIS and Section 106 Draft Memorandum of Agreement to, among other 

things, further research and develop a historic context for this area, increase public awareness of 

																																																								

1

 Final EIS App. I, DC2RVA Recommendation Report at 3-2 et seq. (showing estimated improvements in on-time 

performance for Amtrak passenger trains from between 69.6 and 82.3% in the 2045 No-Build scenarios to well over 

90% in the 2045 Build scenarios for the Preferred Alternative). 

2 Id. (showing a 2.4-minute decrease in freight train minutes of delay per 100 train-miles in the 2045 Build condition 

for the Preferred Alternative when compared to the 2045 No-Build condition for the DC2RVA corridor-specific 

analysis, and a 2.6-minute increase for this factor in the broader network-wide analysis). 

3 See Final EIS at 5-24 (estimating that the avoided automobile trips would have consumed approximately 5.3 

million gallons of fuel per year, compared to an estimated 2.3 million gallons of fuel anticipated to be consumed by 

the additional intercity passenger trips resulting from the project). 
3

its significance, and pursue the establishment of a potential historic district associated with the 

slave trade in Shockoe Bottom. 

 Finally, as we have noted in prior comments, we continue to have concerns with the 

proposal in the Preferred Alternative to shift more of the national trains through Richmond (with 

the exception of Amtrak’s Auto Train) over to the S-Line, and ceding nearly all of the passenger 

rail access to the A-line around downtown. Based on our understanding, shifting to the S-Line 

could cost Virginia a significant amount of funds for train slots and infrastructure maintenance it 

does not have to pay for the A-Line. In addition, while it has been noted that this proposed shift 

would not preclude future use of the A-Line by passenger trains if there end up being problems 

with the S-Line routing, it seems likely that it will be much harder to recover these slots on the 

A-Line for this passenger service once they have been given up to make way for additional 

freight traffic. For a number of reasons, it makes sense to maintain access to the A-Line and 

incrementally increase routing via the S-Line. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments, as well as the significant time and 

effort that have gone into this study. We look forward to continuing to work with DRPT to 

improve this important corridor as this project advances. 

Sincerely, 

Trip Pollard 

Senior Attorney 

Travis Pietila 

Staff Attorney
S h o w c asi n g t h e ri c h hist ori c al a n d c ult ur al h erit a g e of o ur t o w n of As hl a n d, Vir gi ni a

J u n e 3 0, 2 01 9

M s. J e n nif er Mit c h ell

Dir e ct or

Vir gi ni a D e p art m e nt of R ail & P u bli c Tr a n s p ort ati o n 

6 0 0 E a st M ai n Str e et, S uit e 21 0 2

Ri c h m o n d, V A 2 3 21 9 

R e: C o m m e nt s o n Fi n al EI S, W a s hi n gt o n, D. C. t o Ri c h m o n d S o ut h e a st R ail Pr oj e ct

D e ar M s. Mit c h ell:

T h e A s hl a n d M u s e u m c o nti n u e s t o e n d or s e t h e c o m m e nt s fr o m t h e T o w n of A s hl a n d.

W e h o p e y o u u n d er st a n d t h at y o ur d e ci si o n will aff e ct t h e e c o n o mi c vit alit y a n d q u alit y of lif e i n A s hl a n d 

i m m e di at el y, n ot j u st b e gi n ni n g i n 2 0 4 5 or w h e n f u n d s b e c o m e a v ail a bl e f or t h e pr oj e ct. 

A s hl a n d, R a n d ol p h- M a c o n C oll e g e a n d t h e s urr o u n di n g ar e a ar e n ot s u st ai n a bl e wit h a n at- gr a d e t hir d r ail 

t hr o u g h T o w n n or wit h a w all of tr ai n s r u n ni n g t hr o u g h or ar o u n d T o w n. W e e n c o ur a g e y o u t o l o o k at 

s ol uti o n s a n d t e c h n ol o gi e s t h at will b e pr a cti c al b e y o n d 2 0 4 5. It m a k e s n o s e n s e t o i n cr e a s e t h e n u m b er of 

tr ai n s st o p pi n g i n A s hl a n d w h e n t h er e w o n’t b e a c o m m u nit y h er e t o s u p p ort i n cr e a s e d r ail ri d er s hi p.

T h e Ri c h m o n d, Fr e d eri c k s b ur g a n d P ot o m a c R ailr o a d c h o o s e t o b uilt A s hl a n d. It w o ul d b e s a d if 2 0 0 y e ar s 

l at er a n ot h er r ailr o a d d e ci d e d t o d e m oli s h t h e ar e a.

Si n c er el y,

Ell e n W ulf B et s y H o d g e s

Pr e si d e nt, B o ar d of Dir e ct or s A d mi ni str at or

A s hl a n d M u s e u m A s hl a n d M u s e u m

M aili n g A d dr ess: P O B o x 6 3 3, As hl a n d, V A 2 3 0 0 5 | M us e u m L o c ati o n: 1 0 5 H a n o v er A v e., As hl a n d, V A 2 3 0 0 5

8 0 4- 3 6 8- 7 31 4 | as hl a n d m us e u m c o m c ast. n et | w w w. as hl a n d m us e u m. or g
ATTACHMENT D-2:

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMM ENTS ON THE TIER II FINAL EIS 

 

Citizen Comment(s) Response Sent 

I am writing in support of the final environmental impact statement for the DC2RVA 

segment of the Southeast high speed rail project. 

I request that the FEIS be finalized so that the project may move forward to 

construction 

No response required. 

The existing AMTRAK program is and has been in debt for years and the taxpayer foots 

the bill to keep it running. AMTRAK needs to be shut down or privatized. I can see the 

trains pass between Quantico and Fredericksburg daily and the cars are empty. Just like 

the FRED busses in Fredericksburg are empty and continue to run for the benefit of the 

few Mary Washington indigent high rollers. How can anyone continue to spend 

taxpayer money on these studies for a high speed rail when the existing AMTRAK isn’t 

used? I consider this entire effort a contender for the waste/fraud/abuse award for 2019 

and everyone associated with it should be prosecuted. Please provide the FOIA entity I 

can contact to get dollars spent to date on this entire effort so we can get started. 

Thank you for your recent inquiry. The DC2RVA Environmental Impact Statement 

and Preliminary Engineering project has cost approximately $44 million to date. The 

FOIA contact for the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation is Chris 

Smith. His contact information is pasted below. 

chris.smith@drpt.virginia.gov

(804) 225-3930 

600 East Main Street, Suite 2102 

Richmond, VA 23219 

For the Ashland “3-2-2” proposal, can you clarify where the proposed third rail will be 

constructed, east side or west side of existing tracks, between the Elmont switching 

station and Ashcake Road section just south of Ashland? The latest illustration for 

option 5A looks somewhat confusing. Would you happen to have clarification or a 

more detailed picture of what the track changes might look like? 

The proposed third rail south of Ashland and Ashcake Road will be constructed on 

the east side of the existing tracks as indicated by the Permanent Limits of 

Disturbance shown in Final EIS Appendix L, Area 5 on Sheets 163 and 164. South of 

Gwathmey Church Road, the proposed third rail shifts from the east to the west side 

of the existing tracks as indicated by the Permanent Limits of Disturbance shown in 

Appendix L, Area 5 on Sheet 165. The proposed third rail will be constructed on the 

west side of the existing tracks from south of Gwathmey Church Road to south of 

Elmont Road as indicated by the Permanent Limits of Disturbance shown in Appendix 

L, Area 5 on Sheets 166 and 167. These sheets are provided at the level of detail 

available at the conceptual level required for an environmental document. 

These are my personal comments only. They are made also before reading the final 

document but after attending several public hearings. They are also based on my 60 

years of design and construction experience with rail and highway infrastructure. The 

three track trench is the best long term alternative for Ashland. 

a. It significantly reduces at-grade crossings thereby greatly improving safety to citizens. 

b. It is the fastest and most efficient segment between DC and RVA. 

c. It provides some protection to the Town from incidents on rail such as fire or 

explosions. 

d. It retains most of the attractiveness and accessibility of the town center. 

Thank you for your comment. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) carefully reviewed each comment, concern, and request 

received from citizens during the Draft EIS comment period. Appendix C of the Final 

EIS provides detailed responses to general public comments, including comments 

similar to yours. To find answers to these comments, please refer to Appendix C1 

(Index to General Public Comments), which lists the questions that DRPT responded 

to. The intent of this index is to provide a way to easily browse all questions that 

were asked by the general public and locate detailed responses by topic. For your 

comments, please refer to the “Public Involvement” and “Ashland Area Alternatives” 

sections of Appendix C. Specifically, detailed responses are provided on the following 

topics: 

“What was the outcome of the Ashland CAC after the publication of the Draft 

EIS” – Response #3 on Page C2-16. 

"Support for options not evaluated in the Draft EIS", including "Tunnel beneath 

the Town of Ashland" - Response #2b on Page C2-23. 

Additionally, please refer to Appendix G of the Final EIS is the Final Summary Report 

of the Town of Ashland/Hanover County Area Community Advisory Committee. 
RECORD OF DECISION 

 

Citizen Comment(s) Response Sent 

On November 6, 2017 I submitted comments on the Draft EIS. I have been unable to 

find responses to my comments in the comments response sections of the EIS. Would 

you please direct me to the pages in the EIS where my comments are addressed? 

The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) carefully reviewed 

each comment, concern, and request received from citizens during the Draft EIS 

comment period and compiled them into broad subject matter categories, which are 

listed on Page C-1 of the Final EIS (Appendix C: Detailed Responses to General 

Public Comments). In accordance with 40 CFR 1503.4, the comments presented in 

Appendix C convey the substance of the comments made and condense numerous 

similar comments together into a single topic. For that reason, the compilation does 

not always quote comments from individuals verbatim, nor does it list citizens by 

name. 

To find answers to comments, please refer to Appendix C1 (Index to General Public 

Comments), which lists the questions that DRPT responded to for each of the 

subject matter categories. The intent of this index is to provide a way to easily 

browse all questions that were asked by the general public and locate detailed 

responses by topic. 

For your comments, please refer to the “Purpose and Need” and “Proposed Train 

Service/Operations/Schedule” sections of Appendix C. Specifically, detailed responses 

are provided on the following topics: 

“The Purpose and Need is based on an analysis of the current Need for the 

Project. However, the Draft EIS stated that the Project would be constructed 

between 15 and 25 years from now and the projections of the demand for 

enhanced passenger rail and freight service are presented for between 2025 and 

2045—neither of which are current.” – Response #7 on Page C2-5. 

“Concerns about rail technology assumed and/or evaluated in the Draft EIS.” – 

Response #4 on Page C2-9. 

“Concerns about freight service.” – Response #6 on Page C2-10. 

I'm a resident of the Richmond area and have been so for 20+ years. As someone who 

has been in positions that often requires travel the train is generally my last option as 

the service is generally unreliable not necessarily the most affordable in many cases not 

convenient nor the fastest mode of transportation. After returning from another trip to 

Europe having experienced their train service in both Spain and Switzerland I got to 

wondering why is it that our trains are stuck in the 1950s. Also I recently had to pick up 

my parents at the Staples Mill station as they were coming up from Charlotte. That trek 

took over 6 hours. I could drive that route faster and it would be more affordable. 

Which got me to thinking why would anyone ride our current train service with the 

exception of those who cannot drive? Additionally it became abundantly clear to me on 

my return trip from Europe how much the US citizens are at the mercy of our airline 

carriers and in particular those of us who do not live in the NFL cities. Our regional 

plane from IAD to RIC was delayed 5 hours for multiple reasons and flights out of 

smaller cities often increase the fare my 2x. Having a cost effective and reliable 

alternative to get to major metro airports (DC RTP Charlotte) would be a blessing for 

those of us who do not live in DC NYC etc. (Although that isn't necessarily the market 

high speed trains would be targeting as that doesn’t include much in terms of daily 

ridership). So I have spent some time reading the proposal on your website. I've also 

Thank you for your comment. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) carefully reviewed each comment, concern, and request 

received from citizens during the Draft EIS comment period. Appendix C of the Final 

EIS provides detailed responses to general public comments, including questions 

similar to yours. To find answers to these comments, please refer to Appendix C1 

(Index to General Public Comments), which lists the questions that DRPT responded 

to. The intent of this index is to provide a way to easily browse all questions that 

were asked by the general public and locate detailed responses by topic. 

For your comments, please refer to the “Proposed Train Service/ 

Operations/Schedule” and "Corridor Options Not Evaluated in the Draft EIS" 

sections of Appendix C. Specifically, detailed responses are provided on the following 

topics: 

“The passenger trains proposed by the Project should go faster. This is not true 

high speed rail that other countries have.” – Response #3 on Page C2-8 

"Concerns about the technology assumed and/or evaluated in the Draft EIS" - 

Response #4 on Page C2-9 
RESPONSES TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMM ENTS ON THE TIER II FINAL EIS 

 

Citizen Comment(s) Response Sent 

started reading the Reasons.org paper from a few years ago. They are funded by 

someone who opposes this but it is always good to understand the other side. 

Obviously I'm late to the conversation and your study is very thorough (voluminous) 

and I have a ways to go so it is difficult to quickly understand the various inputs and 

decisions so a few questions: 

1) the one thing that jumps off the page to me is why the plans are to only support 

speeds of 90 MPH? Seems like we are placing a lot of time effort and citizen's money 

into building a 1970's Plymouth Volare and not a 2050 Telsa Voyager (or whatever a 

2050 Telsa would be named). From what I can tell the goals of 110MPH were set 20 

years ago. We should be looking at 200MPH. We spend billions on roads repaving 

widening reworking etc etc. Why not redirect a large portion of that to rail for a small 

window of time and do the job right? If you want people to stop driving you need 

better than 90 MPH. 90 MPH is a recipe for failure right out of the gate if the goal is to 

solve the problems listed on Page 4 of the executive summary. If you want me to take 

the train I need to be able to drive 15 miles to the train station have it be on time and 

deliver me to downtown DC in an hour so I can take a Metro/Uber to my final 

destination. Otherwise I'm driving. 

2) In the executive study there is a lot of info about multi modal. Great but do we 

really need to bake the freight service into this? I've seen this before in the technology 

industry. Trying to solve too many problems with a single solution....ends up being a 

solution that is substandard for all problems. Maybe removing passenger service from 

the freight tracks alone would be enough for the freight trains to operate more 

efficiently...and that would be enough. Furthermore how does multimode solve some of 

the delay issues caused by sharing tracks? 

3) As I was driving north last week (not taking the train) I really noticed how much 

open right of way exists in the middle of I-95. Why not take advantage of that (much 

like we have metro trains in the middle of I-66 in NOVA) and just build a passenger 

only solution capable of 200MPH right down the middle of I-95? Is it a technical 

limitation that prevents this? The bridges over the tracks are mostly in place so I'm 

assuming it would be safer (fewer small roads and chances for train/auto crashes). 

Certainly some alterations would need to be made in some places to make room - and 

we are constantly working on I95 so there would be plenty of opportunities to move I95 in places required to make room for the trains..but it seems you could fit two tracks 

i place from the Woodbridge to Ashland for the most part. 

4) Cost study. Looking at the various proposed solutions I'm seeing construction cost 

of approximately $36M per mile $50M per mile (near DC) $22M per mile etc. Shouldn't 

that type of money get us a new 200MPH track? Just seems those costs are extremely 

high for the return on investment. This is not a mountainous area. Pretty flat. Need a 

few bridges but it is not as if we are boring tunnels through mountains. If rural 

Interstate Highways cost $2-3M per mile to build in the US...why is rail 10-25X more 

expensive? Can't be the materials cant be the construction equipment...so what is it? 

"Concerns about freight service" - Response #6 on Page C2-10 

"Did the Project consider moving all freight rail away/separate from passenger 

rail?" - Response #2 on Page C2-20 

"Did the Project consider rail in the I-95 corridor right-of-way and/or within 

powerline right-of-way?" - Response #4 on Page C2-21 
RECORD OF DECISION 

 

Citizen Comment(s) Response Sent 

I am writing in support of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the 

DC2RVA segment of the Southeast high speed rail project and request that the FEIS be 

finalized so that the project may move forward to construction. I will continue to 

note that the one serious shortcoming in the recommended preferred alternative is the 

lack of high level station platforms through the entire length of the project area. High 

level platforms are a necessary component of a successful higher speed rail program as 

they allow for: · Faster, all door boarding · Easier train accessibility for all 

passengers · Shorter station dwell times · Reduced travel time It is time 

for Virginia to move Virginia Railway Express rolling stock towards dual level boarding 

capability so that the full value of higher speed rail in the Southeast can be realized. 

Thanks to DRPT for all of the hard work in getting the DC2Richmond improvement 

project to this final stage of environmental and project review. 

Thank you for your comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Southeast High Speed Rail, Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia (DC2RVA) 

project – we appreciate your support for the project and your interest in improving 

passenger rail service. 

FRA and DRPT evaluated the use of level boarding platforms at stations throughout 

the DC2RVA corridor in both the Draft and Final EIS, recognizing the many 

advantages to passenger rail service. In the Final EIS, the Preferred Alternative does 

include a level boarding platform at the new Staples Mill Road Station on track 

dedicated to passenger trains. However, for most station/platforms, it was 

determined that level boarding platforms were not feasible or practicable as tracks 

serving the station platforms are shared with freight trains operated by CSXT, the 

owner of the rail line on which the passenger trains operate. Level boarding 

platforms are not practicable on track utilized by freight trains. 

Appendix C of the Final EIS provides detailed responses to general public comments 

on the Draft EIS, including comments similar to yours. To find answers to these 

comments, please refer to Appendix C1 (Index to General Public Comments), which 

lists the questions that DRPT responded to. The intent of this index is to provide a 

way to easily browse all questions that were asked by the general public and locate 

detailed responses by topic. For your comments, please refer to the “Station 

Evaluation” section of Appendix C. Specifically, detailed responses are provided to 

several topics regarding “Concern regarding proposed level of boarding platforms at 

station as part of Project improvements”, which is Response #3 of Page C2-28. 

Again, thank you for your comments and interest in passenger rail. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final EIS for the DC2RVA project. 

While most of the project was already covered in the Draft EIS phase the identification 

of a preferred alternative for section 5 through Ashland was not made at that time and 

it is important that the public be able to respond to this selection before the ROD is 

issued. 

The selection of Alternative 5A is likely to severely constrain future rail capacity in 

Virginia and the entire Southeast corridor and result in congestion delays pollution and 

fatalities. This is the main line for both freight and passenger rail on the East Coast and 

alternatives have severe constraints and are not suited for passenger rail in this 

corridor. Keeping rail capacity at two tracks through Ashland as rail traffic increases is 

likely to cause congestion and delays which will affect both Ashland by closing off for 

more of each hour East-West access in the town and on a major state road and the 

state and region by delaying traffic and reducing the usefulness of passenger rail. It will 

also push traffic to already congested roads such as I-95 and Routes 1 and 301 which 

will increase congestion pollution delays and fatal crashes. This is bad locally regionally 

and nationally. 

The Alternative 5C will help Ashland by eliminating freight trains that pass slowly 

through town and often stop blocking critical access within the town. Grade separation 

in the town would be highly disruptive but building a bypass in rural land affects the 

Thank you for your comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Southeast High Speed Rail, Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia (DC2RVA) 

project – we appreciate your interest in improving passenger rail service. Appendix C 

of the Final EIS provides detailed responses to general public comments on the Draft 

EIS, including comments similar to yours. To find answers to these comments, please 

refer to Appendix C1 (Index to General Public Comments), which lists the questions 

that DRPT responded to. The intent of this index is to provide a way to easily 

browse all questions that were asked by the general public and locate detailed 

responses by topic. 

For your comments, please refer to the “Public Involvement” section of Appendix C. 

Specifically, detailed responses are provided regarding “There needs to be a formal 

comment period on any recommendations in Area 5 prior to the next step in the 

process”, which is Response #3b on Page C2-16. Additionally, the potential 

environmental impacts of all Build Alternatives, including residential replacements, 

were summarized in Section 3 of the Draft EIS Executive Summary and detailed in 

Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS. In the Final EIS, the basis and justification for selecting 5A 

as the Preferred Alternative is detailed in Section 4.3.5.2. 

Again, thank you for your comments and interest in passenger rail. 
RESPONSES TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMM ENTS ON THE TIER II FINAL EIS 

 

Citizen Comment(s) Response Sent 

least number of people while maintaining the benefits of an improved rail network. 

Given the latest route suggestion I saw only 2-3 houses would be directly in line of the 

bypass and while others may choose to move this is a very small number of people 

disrupted compared to the building of new highways which often disrupt thousands or 

tens of thousands of people. It is no coincidence that the building of interstates in the 

urban parts of the Richmond area was hugely disruptive to tens of thousands -- often 

low-income and minority residents -- and was implemented on multiple occasions while 

the building of this rail bypass in a rural area which would affect a few dozen people in a 

county with a median household income of $77000 a year and is largely white especially 

in this part of the county is being passed by. 

I understand that this alternative was selected as a compromise but the main result of it 

is to compromise the viability of passenger rail in Richmond Virginia and the Mid 

Atlantic. The costs of fixing this mistake in the future after much of this area gets 

slotted for development and many of the people apparently being protected leave 

anyway will increase dramatically. The penny wise pound foolish Alternative 5A will cost 

more reduce passenger and freight rail usage encourage interstate widening increase 

pollution increase sprawl and do a disservice to residents of the Commonwealth and 

the East Coast. As the project is still in need of much funding the time constraints are 

not as dire as otherwise would be and the FRA should consider either mandating 

Alternative 5C for this project or reopening Alternative 5 for further review before 

issuing an ROD. While that might create some opposition or risk it is better to get this 

project correct now rather than go through with a project that while otherwise a 

positive step will likely have significant issues if this critical component is not dealt with.